Miners, charity and corporate tax

[stui magpie]

@Ptiddy, for a long post it made sense and I follow your login even if I don't necessarily agree with all of it.

It actually strikes me that when it comes to mining we aren't quite on the same page but the same chapter of the book.

Going back on topic for a brief moment, this sums it up for me about athletes meddling in sponsorships

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/netball ... 5bs4g.html

[pietillidie]

^So, taking that as my background, why would anyone want to whitewash mining's political capture and global warming enhancement efforts?

Meanwhile, the CFC's deal with KFC is a mixed bag of PR, marketing and sales, which is actually a super deal for them because they get to reinforce the positive association and the sales behaviour all in one. As I said when the deal was announced, I thought that was a high-risk call because junk food could be put under the microscope with the release of just one powerful study or campaign, and the CFC would be the perfect target for wearing that campaign.

It's also an extremely ugly look for a club with reputational problems already. So I would've strongly advised against it.

I face this question in my everyday work, because my highest-value work by far is PR, and sponsorship like that from Rinehart is by definition purely a reputational play. I keep good relations with people from industries I dislike, and they're often in supply chains or are clients of clients, or what have you, but I'm not going to actively help them whitewash a bad reputation they thoroughly deserve. They're legal and I'm not responsible for every damned thing in the economy and national history (a mistake the far left makes). But actively helping them to whitewash themselves? No thanks.

I'm not fundamentalist about it; as I say, I'm only looking for a 10% improvement in society at any one time. And we're all entwined in it because we live in a society, not on a desert island. But I don't need to actively help them or worse, brand myself with their logo, to strategically whitewash them.

So, I am left wondering in both cases why the heck they can't find any other money aside from whitewashing deals with highly dubious social actors. Why the hell would you take money from global warmer-in-chief Rinehart who has cost the nation and world billions of dollars by leading a movement to delay green energy transition and carbon mitigation? You have empowered Putin and a dozen other complete scumbags in the process of trashing the world.

They are absolutely, completely in their right to refuse to whitewash that. It's not even a close or vaguely ambiguous call.

[What'sinaname]

^ scratch the surface and everyone is a highly dubious social actor.

Mining - tick
Banking - tick
Tech - tick
Healthcare - tick
Pharma - tick
Retail - tick
Ag - tick
Manufacturing - tick

Your utopia is looking more like a fruitopia.

[pietillidie]

That's what the Taliban would tell you, yes, because it's straight out of the fundamentalist extremist's handbook, as well as being a classical far-left irrationalism.

Those industries are also essential to life, civilisation and wellbeing, so it's not about a good and evil children's story.

Did you choose society to be as it is? Are you responsible for everyone else's decisions? The problem with fundamentalism is that it's an asocial omnipotence delusion. You are born into a society and a culture fashioned over hundreds or thousands of years, and you're not responsible for the entirety of world history and operations.

Furthermore, anyone sensible knows that success is about betterment, not perfection. Fundamentalist extremists, on the other hand, tell you it's about perfection.

Answer this, would you prefer to live in a 10% better country or a 10% worse country? Would you prefer 10% more extreme weather events, or 10% less? Would you prefer to be 10% more successful or 10% less successful?

People with half a fraction of world and business experience know that everything important in life is about small fractions of big things. The vast majority of good things in life, such as good health, a comfortable level of wealth, a more enjoyable friendship or relationship, and a better economy or job, are about fractional improvements that compound over time. And that's what the immature, irrational, reactionary, dumb-as-doggie-doo and fundamentalist simply cant grasp.

So, why would you want to wear someone's logo on your back to whitewash their global global warming denial? Why would you whitewash someone responsible for green energy transition delay, helping fund Putin's wars in the process? Why would you brand yourself with the logo of someone who pushed the invasion of Iraq in order to boost their company revenue? Or whatever the situation may be. Some decisions really aren't that difficult when it's about betterment, not perfectionism. You can't get them all right, but you can always do 10% better than you otherwise would've done.

By your reckoning, there are no better and worse states; no better and worse decisions. Which, of course, is utter, complete, deceptive nonsense. There are hundreds of countries and millions of lives only a few marginal decisions away from your life that you in a million years don't want to partake of.

If you're not thinking straight due to a condition, or struggle with numbers, or are vulnerable in some way, brainwashed by a stern guilt-ridden religious upbringing, or such, then I can understand why you would miscomprehend world, society and life in that way. But if that's not the case, and you're wanting a better life in a better society in a better economy, start valuing small improvements and your ability to help them happen.

[What'sinaname]

Answer this, would you prefer to live in a country with 10% more revenue or less. 10% more to spend on aged care or less. 10% more to spend on NDIS or less.

Anyone with any business nous would know that you strike while the iron is hot. If you have an in demand product, you don't limit supply. If Australia doesn't fill demand for iron ore, Brazil or Chile will.

[pietillidie]

Huh, are you that clueless? It's 10% less revenue by the time you factor adverse weather event enhancement and warming (insurance costs, clean-up, agricultural regime/pest/disease shift, etc.), politics and regulatory capture, industry and skills capital diversion, etc.

Global warming is costing trillions, and Putin's ability to leverage fossil fuels to blackmail the world economy is costing billions in inflation and market instability. And that's before we get to the other global thugs living off fossil fuels revenue. Why do I even need to explain this to you?

20 years of green energy delay is monumentally costly. 20 years of regulatory capture is monumentally costly. The Iraq War cost 3 trillion dollars alone, and we know full well which industry drove the whole thing home.

Even worse, imagine Putin triggers a nuclear war instead of backing off (or being taken out) because he knows time is up. We could've had the nutter accepting reality long before he first invaded Ukraine if we had embraced the transition earlier. Even the Saudis know full well they have to pump billions into preparing for a post-fossil fuels world and economy. And Putin is just one example of a bad actor funded by fossil fuels. Have you read anything about mining actors in Africa and Latin America?

Did you learn nothing about the cost of a pandemic that the world was ill-prepared for? Global warming is a novel virus nightmare, FFS. Did you learn nothing about the idiocy of the Iraq War before that, backed by mining companies? Do you not understand what a high-rent industry is and how it contrasts with normal goods and services?

And what about all those people being mis-trained in dying industries when they could be developing skills in a rising industry? Do you know how close we are to eliminating the need for basic materials like concrete and even new-demand minerals like rare earths?

Nuclear fusion, which is much cleaner than fission, or cutting-edge battery tech storing green energy, could change the game overnight.

This is what I mean about really dumb decisions. We live in the dumbest and most reckless moment in contemporary Western history, where no one has the emotional discipline to value and compound small improvements. That's why we get costly stupidity like Brexit, costly destabilisation like Trump, two decades of global warming denial, human catastrophes like Iraq, a refusal to prepare properly for extremely obvious risks like a global pandemic on a shrinking planet, and more.

And that's not to undervalue the absolutely crucial and fundamental role of mining. You don't have to worship something like a golden calf on the one hand, or dismiss it's vital importance to civilisation and life today on the other, to know it needs to be kept focused on the important things it does well and kept from wrecking stuff that we have to pay a fortune to fix tomorrow. Mining needs to pull its head in, and fast, not a handful of netball players, FFS.

[pietillidie]

[What'sinaname]

[quote="watt price tully"]Now I see why the herald sun has so many many subscribers

[watt price tully]

Stop proving you’re a dill, I believe you. The profits increased astronomically. This again has zero that is, nothing to do with the contention that mining companies including Gina Rinehart do not pay enough tax. I mean do I need to type this slowly? This isn’t rocket science. This is basic. I could have sold you Alaska for a few shiny beads. Look beyond the headlines and think. Do some basic research not just copy and paste. Sheesh

[What'sinaname]

Your contention was Gina and miners pay next to no tax.

Barely pays any tax

Lack of tax paid

You just can't admit you are wrong. Everyone else knows you are.

[watt price tully]

Compared to their profits, just a tiny detail you omitted. Being wilfully ignorant is no substitute for argument. Again I believe you, stop trying so hard to convince me, I accept you're a dill.

Gina pays way too little tax as do all of the mining companies and fossil fuel companies let alone the IT companies, far too little. However if you think she pays enough tax then I have a used car to sell you.

[What'sinaname]

^ you really have no idea do you. No company pays tax on their profits. In fact, no one does. Tax is determined based on taxable income. The company tax rate is 30% of taxable income.

But, just to prove your ignorance again. Roy Hill, reported $4.4b in profit. And from that they paid $1.9b in tax, so they paid tax at a rate of 43 cents of every dollar profit they earned.

[stui magpie]

Gina pays way too little tax as do all of the mining companies and fossil fuel companies let alone the IT companies, far too little.

That's an ideological personal opinion, not a fact.

The fact is that mining, as do other companies, pay company tax of 30% on their taxable incomes. Gina's mines have a quite small, comparatively, difference between total income and taxable income, unlike the Banks.

Mining also pays royalties to the state or territory they mine in, as well as all the other taxes companies pay like GST and Payroll tax etc.

Social Media companies who are incorporated in tax havens and shift money around to avoid paying tax on earning in Australia should definitely be held to account, but apart from ideological reasons, there's no valid reason I can see why Mining should pay more tax than any other company.

[What'sinaname]

^ you're wasting you breath Stui on someone whose mind has been made up by what he reads in left wing propaganda.

Miners pay no tax....it's apparently FACT and you are dim if you don't agree.

[watt price tully]

Gina pays way too little tax as do all of the mining companies and fossil fuel companies let alone the IT companies, far too little.

That's an ideological personal opinion, not a fact.

The fact is that mining, as do other companies, pay company tax of 30% on their taxable incomes. Gina's mines have a quite small, comparatively, difference between total income and taxable income, unlike the Banks.

Mining also pays royalties to the state or territory they mine in, as well as all the other taxes companies pay like GST and Payroll tax etc.

Social Media companies who are incorporated in tax havens and shift money around to avoid paying tax on earning in Australia should definitely be held to account, but apart from ideological reasons, there's no valid reason I can see why Mining should pay more tax than any other company.

That is not an ideological opinion at all: any clear thinking on this subject knows that the mining, fossil fuel companies etc have had the Government in their pocket through their lobby groups such as the Minerals council etc Indeed Gina’s mate the beetrooter up North let alone Canavan actively do their bidding.

The ideological position is to accept the status quo as a given and not question how we arrived at this position. That is well and truly ideological. See PTID’s excellent posts on this earlier.

You have no argument from me regarding companies cost shifting (earlier I included IT companies amongst those who do not pay enough tax)